Alabama, Oregon, and Pennsylvania have their marriage laws overturned

I can’t keep up with all of the natural marriage laws being ruled unconstitutional these days! Three states have had their marriage laws overturned in the last two weeks.

Arkansas

In 2004, Arkansas voters approved a constitutional amendment that recognized a man and woman as vital to the institution of marriage. Fast forward 10 years. On May 9, Judge Chris Piazza of the Pulaski County Circuit Court ruled that this amendment is unconstitutional. The Alabama state attorney general appealed to the Alabama State Supreme Court to put a stay on the decision, which was granted in a back-handed way only because Piazza’s decision did not invalidate a law prohibiting clerks from issuing marriage-licenses. But Piazza updated his ruling to try to address the issue, and refused to suspend his decision. As a result, some counties are continuing to issue marriage-licenses while others are not.

Oregon

On Monday, May 19, U.S. District Judge Michael McShane ruled that Oregon’s natural marriage-only constitutional amendment, passed by 57% of the voters in 2004, is unconstitutional. A request was made to the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals to put a stay on the decision, but the request was denied.

Pennsylvania

Yesterday, U.S. District Judge John E. Jones III federal judge declared Pennsylvania’s marriage laws unconstitutional. The decision was effective immediately, and same-sex couples began applying for marriage licenses the same day.

There are now 19 states, plus the District of Washington, that support same-sex marriage.

boxingpythagoras: agreed, “natural” is a philosophically slippery term that is often used to describe markedly “unnatural” (in the naive sense) phenomena

scottspeig: overruling “democratic principles” (i.e. legislative decisions) is one of the principal jobs of the high court. It is part of the balance of powers in the original construction of the American (and state) government, and frankly, one of its most valuable features. Without the balancing effect (albeit imperfect) of the courts, than the majority would never be restricted from imposing its will on the minority through violent and discriminatory legislation. As Madison wrote “The accumulation of all powers, legislative, executive and judicial in the same hands, whether of one, a few, or many, and whether hereditary, self–appointed, or elective, may justly be pronounced the very definition of tyranny.” Would you agree that “Jim crow” or “segregated schools” should have remained legal until “democratically removed”? What about “gender-based discrimination”, should women have just waited for men to change their mind and “benevolently” granted them equal employment status under the law?

Courts always rule over the masses; that’s why the democratic process put Judges in place of mass hype.

jleavitpearl: Indeed “Very well said, very well put”.

scottspeig: Please rememberthis Proverb of Modernity:

There is no aspect of our lives, no matter how intimate, which religion does not unblushingly insist on its right to control. Whom we may love, whom we may desire, with whom we may physically express those feelings: in such restrictions on our freedom religion is at its most insistent and intrusive.

True freedom requires us to liberate ourselves from the tyranny of religion as well as from the tyranny of brutal earthly regimes. True freedom involves the freedom to think, to explore, to grow; the freedom to pursue knowledge and learning, wherever they lead; the freedom to be different, not to conform; freedom from bigotry; freedom from ignorance; freedom to love and to express that love as we choose; freedom to be ourselves, to accept ourselves, warts and all, and to accept others on the same terms; freedom to choose our own meaning and purpose in life, and to make our own decisions on the basis of those free choices; freedom to make mistakes; freedom to change our mind; freedom from fear, especially from phoney fears invented by those whose only aim is to control us in word, thought and deed.

I know my position is misunderstood, but it has just occurred to me that I might be misunderstanding your position also. Since I believe the vast majority of SSM supporters are good people who don’t want to see discrimination I thought this post may help me explain my concerns and understand your position. Some questions: Do you think the concerns against SSM are just an excuse for bigotry? Do you think once SSM is the law of the land other people that can’t get married now will use this to obtain their right to get married also? Do you believe this will end with two people of the opposite sex? Would you put any limitations on who should be able to get married? Should religions have to perform a SSM against their beliefs? I also want to live in a society without discrimination, but that would be a perfect world and we’re imperfect human beings. We have imperfect leaders, imperfect citizens, different ideas of right and wrong, what is fair, etc… Presently the best we can do is compromise. Now the problem with the SSM debate is we’ve seen in the past what happens when we offer our hand in compromise, the other side rips off our arm and beats us to death. Based on past experiences we’ve made a logical conclusion on how this is going to end. In other different situations it seems what happens is discrimination is not eliminated, the discrimination just happens to another group that isn’t as well liked or not considered human beings. Let’s review: Civil Rights; problem was black man need not apply, compromise was education and best person for the job, what happened is affirmative action (ie. white people need not apply), in future government won’t allow a person to work if they disagree with “the rules”; Abortion; problem was women dying in back alley abortions, compromise was making abortion legal, safe and rare, what happened (at least where I live) abortion on demand (sex selection, partial birth and even able to abort 9 month old fetus), in future the government will coerce abortions. In Jason’s last post I discussed child gender confusion and how that will play out. I want to help same-sex couples also but the trouble is if SSM happens the genie is out of the bottle and the “Left” (for lack of a better word) will run with the ball and end up in the most craziest place you can imagine. Their not going to stop till every imaginable barrier is crossed. This will end badly.